Actually so hot today that I spent most inside. So since I was in AC, decided I'd open a '94 in honor of you!Poyferre is pretty tasty, though of course tannic. Notes laterInterested in appellation of the Roche Brun (who names a wine Brown Rock?)

We drank a 1994 Pontet Canet this evening with dinner. It was very youthfull and less evolved compared with a bottle I had a few months ago. It had loads of "cedarbox" on the nose and displayed loads of power in both the smell and in the taste. It was not a wine I would call hedonistic but it impressed me a lot, there was more than enough fruit and structure with loads of ripe and soft tannins, the acidity of this wine is not low but it did not stould out either. This wine has still many years ahead of it and I'm looking forward to see how this will evolve. If you open it now I would advice to give it a bit of time in the decanter because I liked it better when it had gotten some air.

"How can you trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders? The man can't even trust his own pants."

David M. Bueker wrote:Dieter - you seem to have some rather definitive opinions today*. Why not participate in the discussion instead of telling us all how wrong we are in our preferences. What are your specific issues with the '94s? Is it tannins, acidity, fruit levels?

David, you're absolutely right, I should be more specific about my issue with 1994 Bordeaux: Firstly I think their quality/price ratio is problematic. I would prefer any excellent (and affordable) Cru Bourgeois from 1995 or 1996 (e.g. Sociando-Mallet) to any Cru Classé from 1994. The only 1994 Bordeaux I like are: Angelus and Pichon-Lalande.Secondly I think 1994 Bordeaux don't have enough fruit to really improve with aging. I don't see what to wait for here.Thirdly I think Bordeaux is overrated in general. For most people it seems to be an untouchable benchmark for red wine worldwide. The truth is that legendary bottles are as rare in Bordeaux as in any other wine region of this world.

Thank you for you detailed response. Certainly some on this site see things differently than you do, but I can completely understand your points. Of course some people (one of my tasting groups) feel that Bordeaux is the only wine worth drinking, but I personally prefer a more balanced view, where Bordeaux is a necessary component of a balanced cellar. I happen to like some '94s (Barton, Pontet Canet, Las Cases - never tasted the firsts), but I prefer more austere wines as a rule (I also love the 2001 and 2002 Bordeaux, over the 2000s).

Of course if I had to choose just one red wine it would be Burgundy and not Bordeaux.

I've had a few 1994's including many bottles of both Sociando and Poyferre, which were both pretty decent, but not spectacular. The Pontet Canet is very nice. Meyney was surprisingly decent. I've had 1994 Latour and I liked it very much, probably my wine of the vintage. We did a horizontal a few years back, if I can locate my notes I'll post more of them.

I find the style of the vintage fairly distinctive--chunky, solid fruit with hard tannins and frequently a clipped finish. They are muscular wines and I agree that the fruit is probably not going to suddenly blossom into something it's never been, rather it will fade with the tannins. I think it shares some characteristics with 2004.

That said, the 1994's I've bought have been quite reasonably priced. Sociando, Poyferre, and Meyney each under $25 at auction only a few years ago. If those wines can be found for close to those prices, I say that's a very good qpr.

Picked this wine because I felt this would be approachable. Opened and drank it with two wine geeks and their significant other. It was quit interesting because you had an initial opinon and then when it opened, about 30 minutes later. Initially it was tannic, closed and quit unyielding. It then opened up and was fantastic. Classic nose, leather, tobacco, chocolate (merlot) and very balanced. Wild berry flavors and it ended up as two of us commented, "the best '94 ever tasted". This wine would go on for many more years and I only wish I had a lot more in my cellar. May not have be a great example of '94 but if it is close, keep them and be ready for a classic bordeaux experience over the next 10+ years. A great wine and more than was expected. Walt

Matt Richman wrote:I've had a few 1994's including many bottles of both Sociando and Poyferre, which were both pretty decent, but not spectacular. The Pontet Canet is very nice. Meyney was surprisingly decent. I've had 1994 Latour and I liked it very much, probably my wine of the vintage. We did a horizontal a few years back, if I can locate my notes I'll post more of them.

Since our only bottles of '94 are two bottles of Pontet-Canet, I think that I'll let you guys post the notes this time.

I find the style of the vintage fairly distinctive--chunky, solid fruit with hard tannins and frequently a clipped finish. They are muscular wines and I agree that the fruit is probably not going to suddenly blossom into something it's never been, rather it will fade with the tannins. I think it shares some characteristics with 2004.

From your description, I'd also liken it to '88, a year that I like a lot in retrospect.

This is a very good Poujeaux. It is sturdy and flavourful without the alleged 1994 faults of unripe Cabernet, angular dry tannins and abrupt finish.C: Quite deep red with little sign of ageing.N: Well developed fragrant red fruit with, at first, an impression of stalkiness transforming into a dab of sweat.P: At first it seemed a little small albeit sturdy but either it filled out or my palate adjusted because mouth-fill became more than satisfactory and enhanced the lively fruit, fragrance and earthy minerality encased in resolved structure. This is not a hedonistic Poujeaux like the 1997 (but my last bottle I opened of that was fading somewhat) and is more in the austere and savoury vein of 1988 but better, I think, because I recall a green note on the finish of that one. This is what good bourgeois claret is all about; indeed Poujeaux was punching well above its weight at that time; 16/20+.

I shall have to move my 5 remaining bottles from deep in the ageing stack to the ready-to-drink rack.

wrcstl wrote:Picked this wine because I felt this would be approachable. Opened and drank it with two wine geeks and their significant other. It was quit interesting because you had an initial opinon and then when it opened, about 30 minutes later. Initially it was tannic, closed and quit unyielding. It then opened up and was fantastic. Classic nose, leather, tobacco, chocolate (merlot) and very balanced. Wild berry flavors and it ended up as two of us commented, "the best '94 ever tasted". This wine would go on for many more years and I only wish I had a lot more in my cellar. May not have be a great example of '94 but if it is close, keep them and be ready for a classic bordeaux experience over the next 10+ years. A great wine and more than was expected. Walt

Walt, I'm so envious. All my 94's except the Margaux, such as they are, were purchased at auction, and I've bid on--and been outbid on every time--many a L'Angelus. Obviously others know what you do.

My wine shopping and I have never had a problem. Just a perpetual race between the bankruptcy court and Hell.--Rogov

This is a very good Poujeaux. It is sturdy and flavourful without the alleged 1994 faults of unripe Cabernet, angular dry tannins and abrupt finish.C: Quite deep red with little sign of ageing.N: Well developed fragrant red fruit with, at first, an impression of stalkiness transforming into a dab of sweat.P: At first it seemed a little small albeit sturdy but either it filled out or my palate adjusted because mouth-fill became more than satisfactory and enhanced the lively fruit, fragrance and earthy minerality encased in resolved structure. This is not a hedonistic Poujeaux like the 1997 (but my last bottle I opened of that was fading somewhat) and is more in the austere and savoury vein of 1988 but better, I think, because I recall a green note on the finish of that one. This is what good bourgeois claret is all about; indeed Poujeaux was punching well above its weight at that time; 16/20+.

I shall have to move my 5 remaining bottles from deep in the ageing stack to the ready-to-drink rack.

Tim, I haven't had that many Poujeauxs--offhand, 96 and 98 are the vintages I recall--but if the comparatively big juicy fruit of those two vintages is typical and this isn't an absurd extrapolation, then I can easily imagine Poujeaux being a strong performer in a year like 94. Thanks for the note.

My wine shopping and I have never had a problem. Just a perpetual race between the bankruptcy court and Hell.--Rogov

Felix Warners wrote:We drank a 1994 Pontet Canet this evening with dinner. It was very youthfull and less evolved compared with a bottle I had a few months ago. It had loads of "cedarbox" on the nose and displayed loads of power in both the smell and in the taste. It was not a wine I would call hedonistic but it impressed me a lot, there was more than enough fruit and structure with loads of ripe and soft tannins, the acidity of this wine is not low but it did not stould out either. This wine has still many years ahead of it and I'm looking forward to see how this will evolve. If you open it now I would advice to give it a bit of time in the decanter because I liked it better when it had gotten some air.

Felix, Pontet Canet is one of my favorite Bordeauxs--there's something magical about the aromatics of the aged wines that, you might say, hits my G spot!--and it seems to be a house whose wines can be counted on to age extremely well. I hope you have more. Thanks for the note.

My wine shopping and I have never had a problem. Just a perpetual race between the bankruptcy court and Hell.--Rogov

Matt Richman wrote:That said, the 1994's I've bought have been quite reasonably priced. Sociando, Poyferre, and Meyney each under $25 at auction only a few years ago. If those wines can be found for close to those prices, I say that's a very good qpr.

You hit on a key point for us who purchased our 94's second hand vs. buying them at release prices (where Dieter's reservations were probably sound). I have both a Margaux, LLC and a Pichon Baron all standing up for tasting, and those only cost me $70, $50 and $39 respectively. Cheap enough for top producers to gamble on.

My wine shopping and I have never had a problem. Just a perpetual race between the bankruptcy court and Hell.--Rogov

1994 Chateau Roche BrunI can finally answer one of Dale's questions. This is a St. Emilion. I still have no idea where I purchased it or why, but my inventory shows a price of $30 meaning it didn't just walk into our cellar on its own. And what was it like? Awful. Strange and necrotic nose of apple butter and resin. Bob found it attractive, I didn't. The first sip wasn't awful, but the fourth or fifth was. It crashed in nanoseconds, and we donated it to the camellias. So we opened:

1994 Chateau CanonAnother St. Emilion. Very nice wine and drinking well now. Nose has spicy red fruit and fungal tones that made me wish I was serving it with something mushroomy. (As it was, we were drinking it with smoked salmon still warm from the smoking. Not a good choice but this was the wine I wanted to drink and the food I had to eat, so we were happy to make do.) Had the austerity of the vintage and therefore none of the sensuous qualities aged St. Emilions can have in more generous vintages, but it was a nice if not stellar bottle of wine which, based on slight, but only slight, fading over the two hours we drank it would seem to be past peak. Drink up!

My wine shopping and I have never had a problem. Just a perpetual race between the bankruptcy court and Hell.--Rogov

Jenise wrote:You hit on a key point for us who purchased our 94's second hand vs. buying them at release prices (where Dieter's reservations were probably sound). I have both a Margaux, LLC and a Pichon Baron all standing up for tasting, and those only cost me $70, $50 and $39 respectively. Cheap enough for top producers to gamble on.

Actually, I don't remember release pricing for '94s as high. I don't think I have old catalogs, but will look. But I think I paid around $20 for the Poyferre, so P-Baron was probably $30 or less. My (foggy) memories were that prices for ''91 & '92 were lower than '90, and then '93 & '94 were back up equal with '90. Then an increase for '95 (good rep), and further increase for '96. The problem came with '97, where there was no substantial price drop. But I could be wrong.

thanks for notes, Jenise. I'm wary of those St Emilions I've never heard of. Canon is generally a dependable fairly tradtional house. I guess I should have posted my Poyferre note here instead of normal TN, not used to OM format (summary" 94 L-Poy is a solid if not stellar wine)

Felix Warners wrote:We drank a 1994 Pontet Canet this evening with dinner. It was very youthfull and less evolved compared with a bottle I had a few months ago. It had loads of "cedarbox" on the nose and displayed loads of power in both the smell and in the taste. It was not a wine I would call hedonistic but it impressed me a lot, there was more than enough fruit and structure with loads of ripe and soft tannins, the acidity of this wine is not low but it did not stould out either. This wine has still many years ahead of it and I'm looking forward to see how this will evolve. If you open it now I would advice to give it a bit of time in the decanter because I liked it better when it had gotten some air.

Felix, Pontet Canet is one of my favorite Bordeauxs--there's something magical about the aromatics of the aged wines that, you might say, hits my G spot!--and it seems to be a house whose wines can be counted on to age extremely well. I hope you have more. Thanks for the note.

Thanks for the response. Yes I have another case of this so I'm very happy there was still enough fruit present. People in a thread on the parkerbb suggested the fruit faded to fast but for me this wine could easily last for a few more years. I also have some 1995 and 2000 Pontet but have not opened one of those. So if you have had the 1995 I'm very interested how it is drinking and if I should give it a go. Wine is emotion and now I know the Pontet Canet hits your G-spot this will add a whole new dimension to the next time I will open a bottle of PC.

"How can you trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders? The man can't even trust his own pants."

Felix Warners wrote: Wine is emotion and now I know the Pontet Canet hits your G-spot this will add a whole new dimension to the next time I will open a bottle of PC.

Well, don't think about it *too* hard. But, some wines are purely intellectual, some wines are sensual, some wines are fun, some wines are boring--there is a whole range of responses wine can evoke. For me, that factor is always determined by the nose. And the nose of a good bottle of aged PC just has it all for me--the 85, 86, 66 and 78 we had in the last five years were all equally hypnotic and outperfomers in their price range.

Glad you have more botttles.

My wine shopping and I have never had a problem. Just a perpetual race between the bankruptcy court and Hell.--Rogov

Dale Williams wrote:thanks for notes, Jenise. I'm wary of those St Emilions I've never heard of. Canon is generally a dependable fairly tradtional house. I guess I should have posted my Poyferre note here instead of normal TN, not used to OM format (summary" 94 L-Poy is a solid if not stellar wine)

What do you mean with "traditional". The shop where I work we sell the 2001 Canon but I havent tried it (yet) and never had a Canon before.

"How can you trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders? The man can't even trust his own pants."

David M. Bueker wrote:Of course if I had to choose just one red wine it would be Burgundy and not Bordeaux.

David, I'm pleased to read that you love Burgundy, too. Burgundy can be so inspiring, even the "simplest" wines, for example the 2002 Bourgogne rouge from Joseph Roty (Gevrey-Chambertin). It costs about USD 20, and I pay to this more tribute than to many many Bordeaux which cost much more.

David M. Bueker wrote:Of course if I had to choose just one red wine it would be Burgundy and not Bordeaux.

David, I'm pleased to read that you love Burgundy, too. Burgundy can be so inspiring, even the "simplest" wines, for example the 2002 Bourgogne rouge from Joseph Roty (Gevrey-Chambertin). It costs about USD 20, and I pay to this more tribute than to many many Bordeaux which cost much more.

While I would not go that far for most Bourgogne Rouge (though I do very much like Chevillon and Arnoux to name two, and would take both voer most, but not all Bordeaux), there are more occasions where I am stunned by the quality of a Burgundy than I am by a Bordeaux. Of course that could be surprise!

My tastes in European wine are rather catholic (small c). I am mostly looking for a fine expression of the style. I'm also not a chaser of vintages, rather finding pleasure in what a given year has to offer.